Paul - It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to those photographers. Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? Bev

Paul, Bev and others with similar problem... For several years I have hired a photographer to take pictures at a family reunion. I have also purchased from this photographer one or more of each of the photographs. Others who attend may and do purchase whatever pictures they want. None of the photographs have the photographer's name or any notation front or back that they were copyrighted until this year. In 2004 I had an 85 year old lady ask me - not at the reunion - for a copy of the group shot. I made her a copy and sent it to her. Somehow the photographer found out about it and raised all kinds of heck.... It never occurred to me that she would claim a copyright on the pictures that I hired her to take and on those I bought and paid for. I talked to several other photographers and opinions varied but a couple of them said they felt like since I hired her to take the photographs she should not claim a copyright on the pictures. For 2005 I was going to use a different photographer but a few days before the reunion she called to tell me she would not be able to do so. So I called the one we have used for several years. She took the pictures but I noticed she bought a rubber stamp and stamped copyright and her name on the back of every picture. I certainly had no intention of stealing her work as she put it. But I did pay her $150 for being there about two hours and spending about 30 minutes taking a few pictures. She does not have a business name or location but she does have a card with her home address and phone number and takes wedding and other pictures for anyone who hires her. I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the pictures. Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the group shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't make a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part of the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. Rex -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy Paul - It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to those photographers. Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? Bev ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

By law, you hired her to do the picture, which she did. You paid her for the copies. However, unless you arrainged it beforehand, she owns the copyright and the negatives. Most photographers would never agree to do it any other way. Federal law recognizes the photos as a creative work and therefore copyrighted to the photographer. I can assure you, after many years of shooting weddings and model portfolios, that their is MUCH more to it than being there and pressing a button. If that was all there was to it then why even pay someone to do it? Why not just let someone in the group who doesn't want to be in the picture take them. Of course you must remember.... They won't be using $1000-$5000 worth of state of the art camera that will do things your family camera could not think of doing. They won't have at least one more just like it in their camera bag for backup. They will not have several thousand more dollars tied up in lenses, flashes, umbrella reflectors to fill in shadows on peoples faces, and a multitude of other expensive equipment. They will not have years of training and experience. They'll probably off-center most pictures with heads cut off in many. The composition will be terrible with a tree growing out of one person's head and a telephone pole growing out of another. You'll have half the people's faces washed out with overpowering sunlight while the other half are invisible in deep shadow. I could go on for another page or two, but I think you see the message. They are not simply showing up and pressing a button. Bottom line, unless you pay them quite a bit extra for it the photographer owns all copyrights on the photos, and has earned them. That being said, I normally gave my subjects the negatives and a signed copyright release, but ONLY after they had purchased a large amount of prints through me. Don't expect, though, to find many photographers who are willing to do this. Rex Kirby wrote: >I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures >for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my >intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the >reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the pictures. > >Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the group >shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't make >a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more >confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of >photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part of >the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their >camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. > >Rex >

You are correct. All Olin Mills photos are copyrighted. Since the revisions in the Federal Copyright acts in 1988 a photograph is immediately, and automatically, copyrighted at the moment it is taken. No copyright notice or copyright symbol is required on it at all anymore, nor is copyright registration required Even your family snapshots are covered by copyright. The copyrights can still be registered, which gives you additional rights and recourse if it is infringed, but it is copyrighted immediately without it. You were correct that the church photos were protected. The possible fines start at $20, 000 per copy and range up to $100,000 per copy dependent on financial harm to the copyright owner. In fact over 10 copies and over $2500 in value becomes a Federal Felony. This also applies to copyrighted photos, graphics, etc. on the internet "lifted" for use on someone else's personal or commercial website. This also aplies to written works. Tim [email protected] wrote: >It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a >copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the >photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to >the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures >are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make >copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to >those photographers. > >Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > >Bev >

Thanks, Tim. 1988 was the revision? Have you a citation ? Thanks. Paul Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Kemp To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy You are correct. All Olin Mills photos are copyrighted. Since the revisions in the Federal Copyright acts in 1988 a photograph is immediately, and automatically, copyrighted at the moment it is taken. No copyright notice or copyright symbol is required on it at all anymore, nor is copyright registration required Even your family snapshots are covered by copyright. The copyrights can still be registered, which gives you additional rights and recourse if it is infringed, but it is copyrighted immediately without it. You were correct that the church photos were protected. The possible fines start at $20, 000 per copy and range up to $100,000 per copy dependent on financial harm to the copyright owner. In fact over 10 copies and over $2500 in value becomes a Federal Felony. This also applies to copyrighted photos, graphics, etc. on the internet "lifted" for use on someone else's personal or commercial website. This also aplies to written works. Tim [email protected] wrote: >It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a >copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the >photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to >the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures >are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make >copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to >those photographers. > >Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > >Bev > ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005

But a person cant use a photo of you for financial gain without written consent can they even if they took it and it is copywrited. And if a person states on their website you may use their clipart for personal or educational use but not commercial gain, istnt that okay too? cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > You are correct. All Olin Mills photos are copyrighted. Since the > revisions in the Federal Copyright acts in 1988 a photograph is > immediately, and automatically, copyrighted at the moment it is taken. No > copyright notice or copyright symbol is required on it at all anymore, nor > is copyright registration required Even your family snapshots are covered > by copyright. The copyrights can still be registered, which gives you > additional rights and recourse if it is infringed, but it is copyrighted > immediately without it. > > You were correct that the church photos were protected. The possible > fines start at $20, 000 per copy and range up to $100,000 per copy > dependent on financial harm to the copyright owner. In fact over 10 > copies and over $2500 in value becomes a Federal Felony. > > This also applies to copyrighted photos, graphics, etc. on the internet > "lifted" for use on someone else's personal or commercial website. This > also aplies to written works. > > Tim > > [email protected] wrote: > >>It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a >>copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the >>photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are >>copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, >>Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several >>places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents >>because they are copyrighted to those photographers. >> >>Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? >> >>Bev >> > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

You are absolutely correct, Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > Paul - > > It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a > copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the > photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are > copyrighted to > the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills > pictures > are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make > copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted > to > those photographers. > > Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > > Bev > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

thanks Bev. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Parrott To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy You are absolutely correct, Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > Paul - > > It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a > copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the > photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are > copyrighted to > the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills > pictures > are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make > copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted > to > those photographers. > > Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? > > Bev > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005